Surprise!
Mathematicians have discovered that there is no exact formula for the “perfect” female body.
A study recently published in Scientific Reports challenges long-standing assumptions about the most attractive female body shape — and it may not be about the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR).
Researchers at the University of Konstanz in Germany claim to have discovered that a pronounced “S” shape from the chest down to their thighs — like Marilyn Monroe or Kim Kardashian — “is a better predictor of a woman’s body attractiveness” than a specific ratio.
This form, rather than an exact measurement, appears to be something women are supposed to hold in high regard when looking in the mirror.
The new research questions previous findings that a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7 — where the waist is approximately 30% smaller than the hips — is the ideal indicator of female beauty.
While the waist-to-hip ratio has long been associated with fertility and health, the scientists argue that it’s not just about having “perfect” proportions.
In fact, the study finds that for larger body types, overall curviness is a more important factor in perceived attractiveness than a specific waist measurement.
Shocker! There might not be one formula.
For centuries, the waist-to-hip ratio has been regarded as the most important factor in determining the “perfect” female form — meanwhile, dad bods may be the hottest shape for men.
This idea hasn’t been updated since the Renaissance and is linked to evolutionary psychology, where scientists suggested that a WHR of 0.7 might signal good reproductive health because wider hips and more fat distribution in the lower body were thought to indicate better health and fertility.
However, the recent study confirmed that determining the most attractive female body — yes, something scientists are still doing — may not come down to a mathematical formula.
To test this theory, Professor Ronald Hübner and his team conducted an experiment using simple line drawings of female torsos. The drawings were manipulated so that the WHR and the degree of curviness were aligned.
The participants, a group of 80 men and women, were asked to rate the attractiveness of each drawing on a scale of one to 100.
As expected, the drawings with a 0.7 WHR were rated as the most attractive. A drawing with a 0.7 WHR received an average attractiveness score of 74, while a drawing of the same body weight but with a more straight-line figure (a 1:1 ratio) received a score of just 54.
That confirmed earlier research linking WHR with attractiveness for slimmer body types — although a body in the median weight category was preferred to those that appeared to be over- or underweight.
In a second experiment, the researchers changed the conditions to isolate the effect of curviness.
In this case, the WHR and curviness were no longer perfectly aligned. Some drawings were designed with exaggerated curviness, as seen in corset-tightened women with extreme curves and others were nearly straight.
A group of 98 people were then asked to rate the newly drawn images.
The 0.7 WHR remained the most attractive for slimmer bodies — but for larger body types, curviness emerged as the dominant factor in perceived attractiveness rather than an exact proportion.
In fact, when the largest body with a 0.7 WHR was shown, it received the lowest rating, a mere 17 out of 100. The most attractive bodies were those with the greatest curviness, regardless of measurements.
In conclusion, the University of Konstanz researchers propose a shift in our understanding of female beauty.
While the waist-to-hip ratio has long been a key determinant of attractiveness, the new research suggests that determining beauty is more elusive than previously thought.
